If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You haven't posted anything yet. To participate in our discussions, you can create a new thread of reply to existing ones. We'd love to hear from you and value your WW2 knowledge.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

Do you have any evidence? Pls,. send me a quote!
i have just sources (incl. Zaloga books) stating NO any 17prd-gun in US service.

That would be correct. Indeed NO 17-Pdr's entered U.S. service. The few hundred conversions were made, but never left Britain--at least in American service IIRC...

Here's the quote you so desperately need:

Additionally, interest in mounting the British 17 pounder in U.S. Shermans flared anew. In February 1945, the U.S. Army began sending 75 mm M4s to England for conversion to the 17 pounder gun. Approximately 100 tanks were completed by the beginning of May. By then, the end of the war in Europe was clearly in sight, and the U.S. Army decided that the logistics of adding a new ammunition caliber to the supply train was not warranted. None of the converted 17-pounder M4s were deployed by the U.S., and it is unclear what happened to most of them, although some were given to the British as part of Lend-Lease.[27]

I think I first read this in the book about the Pershing I acquired off Ebay...

Other hand: tell the truth guys, the REALLY succesfull post-war US tanks had no US guns (british L7 and german 120mm SB)

So? What's your point?

The British L7 105mm gun was excellent in it's day, and a U.S. source modification was made increasing its effectiveness and prolonging its life on the M-60A3. And the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore was actually a sort of a joint, German-led, project IIRC...

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

There were a lot of quantum leaps in technology during World War II and the peripheral years prior to and after, perhaps more than during any war in the 20th century. We saw it in aircraft, small arms, electronic warfare, production capabilities, etc. My consensus is that if a proposed change interfered with the steady rate of production, delivery and training, then it was shelved or put on the back burner, but not abandoned altogether. It would have been great if the M26 Pershing tank could have been the MBT of U.S. and perhaps British forces. Perhaps if the U.S. entry into World War II had been a couple of years later or if the Germans had held off on starting the war for a few years, there would have been more Pershings and less Shermans, Grants, and General Lees. Look at the sudden obsolescence of the U.S. submarine force which had to be brought up to post-war standards with streamlined hulls and superstructures, improved steering and diving capabilities, snorkels and other "add-ons" until the first generation nuclear submarines came on line. Look too at the sudden transition from un-supercharged piston aircraft engines and aircraft with silk covered control surfaces to flush riveted all aluminum frames, pressurized cabins and jet engines. That quantum leap in aviation took place in the span of about five years, yet when C-54 and B-29 production commenced, B-17, B-24 and C-47 production continued as a matter of necessity. When World War II ended, almost all of America's air power was suddenly obsolete and so was everything else. The temporary relief from war gave the major powers a little time to cull their huge and obsolete arsenals and modernize their production capabilities. Going back to the issue of tanks, it is unlikely that the U.S. will ever again be caught flat footed with an inferior tank. The ongoing priority since the end of World War II has been to maintain tank design superiority over all potential enemies.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

A lot of people debate wether or not the m27 should have replaced the m4 as it was originally intended to do, but the ease of build of the m4 couldn't be met by the m27 and it would have been impossible to change a mbt in the middle of war. Thats why they ended up fighting along side each other. They were both replaced after the war by the heavier m26 Pershing.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

Originally Posted by azza

A lot of people debate wether or not the m27 should have replaced the m4 as it was originally intended to do, but the ease of build of the m4 couldn't be met by the m27 and it would have been impossible to change a mbt in the middle of war. Thats why they ended up fighting along side each other. They were both replaced after the war by the heavier m26 Pershing.

Thank you azza. I corrected my statement in identifying the Pershing tank as the M27 to the M26. I think that the problems faced in production between two entirely different designs was the reason for continuing M4 production, with extensive modifications in the form of the M4A3, M4A4 and M4E8, and a gradual introduction of the later tanks.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

A lot of good tankers died due the faults of the Sherman. When the Germans found out that we were rehabilitating battle damaged shermans in mass they made sure that the next ones that they knocked out were burned to destroy the armour plating or should I say the heat treating of the hull which made it useless to rebuild. From what I understand, It was Patton's call on the armour that he wanted and he chose the M-4 over the Pershing even though the Pershing was starting to enter the logistic pipeline before June 6, 1944.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

Good Tankers have died in every model of tank ever put into the field, its the risk everyone assumes when they swear the Soldiers Oath. As to General Patton, as influential as he may have been, he did not have the brass to control the decision of which vehicles would be issued beyond organizing operations for his own units. Its not just a question of what,and how much is in the pipeline, there is also the matter of training men to fight these machines, and utilize their strengths properly.A tank is nothing without a trained and competent crew to operate it.This takes time, and maybe it was time that could not be spared. These are just my thoughts on the subject.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

Originally Posted by Vsshooter

When the Germans found out that we were rehabilitating battle damaged shermans in mass they made sure that the next ones that they knocked out were burned to destroy the armour plating or should I say the heat treating of the hull which made it useless to rebuild.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

Recovery and repair of vehicles & equipment damaged in battle was a common practice for all sides of a conflict, even before WW II. As far as I have discovered, there was no particular heat treating provided to Sherman armor, it being described as homogeneous. As for fires, it was difficult to keep the M-4 from burning after a hit, so it wouldnt take any real sort of effort to set one blazing. Even with the advent of wet storage for main gun ammo, there was always the gasoline problem to consider.The decision of salvage or scrap was more likely one of repair turn around time, those tanks with more severe damage plundered for spares used to refit vehicles with less damage. With the degree of replacement availability the M-4 had, it may not have been time/ cost effective to refit badly damaged tanks The M-4 was able to deal with Panzers I through III fairly easily, and early IV were manageable, It wasnt until the V&VI showed that things got out of hand. The truth is that the M-26's larger, higher velocity gun was its principle asset for dealing with Panthers and Tigers, its armor(also homogeneous) while better than the M-4, was not all that could be hoped for.

Re: M-27 Tank: Should the US Have Replaced the M4 Sherman?

Originally Posted by Vsshooter

A lot of good tankers died due the faults of the Sherman. When the Germans found out that we were rehabilitating battle damaged shermans in mass they made sure that the next ones that they knocked out were burned to destroy the armour plating or should I say the heat treating of the hull which made it useless to rebuild.

This tactic was hardly exclusive to the Germans nor the Sherman. I'm rereading tracts of An Army at Dawn, and it was very typical early on for sapper teams to take the field in the early morning after the battle and blast apart the wounded hulls of enemy tanks. Specifically, the British did this to good effect in Tunisia in a follow-up battle after Kasserine where a major Afrika Korp offensive was blunted and Rommel ended up losing many of his remaining tanks for no gain...

From what I understand, It was Patton's call on the armour that he wanted and he chose the M-4 over the Pershing even though the Pershing was starting to enter the logistic pipeline before June 6, 1944.

That's a myth. Gen. Patton had little actual say and was in no position to order what tanks the U.S. should develop and deploy. It was far more the fault of Army Ground Forces Command(er) Gen. Lesley McNair --who piously held the faith in the failed Tank Destroyer Doctrine and who attempted to frustrate not only the deployment of the Pershing, but upgrades of the Sherman into a AFV with sufficient antitank capability so as to prevent its crews from "tank hunting" or "stalking"...